Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

example for Format of the first sentence

The first line from the Solar System is used as an example, and it's a great line, but the rest of the lead stinks (IMHO), especially for a featured article. I put it up for FA review, and that got some changes, but it's still poor. I've put an RfC out on it, but the same editors who've looked after it for the past couple(?) of years are the only respondents - plus one guy who wants the Moon/Earth classed as a double-planet.

I think some other example should be used so users don't copy the poor example of the rest of the lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Quote;

The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity).

It shouldn't need saying, but the Set should not be the whole set of facts surrounding the subject. I think Set should be replaced with sub-set. The Solar System lead (which I've changed through FA review, and am now in RfC with), does indeed supply in the lead the whole Set of facts surrounding the subject. The sub-set would need qualifying by significant maybe, or important. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sub-article template

The guideline mentions creating a link from a sub-article to the parent: the example given was "This is a sub-article to Muhammad before Medina." Is there not a template for this? --Jameboy (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

{{main}} works; if you think we need a new one for this specific wording then {{child}} hasn't been taken yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want to control our readers?

The article says, in the introductory text section, The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. That bold faced section needs to come out. Different people have different purposes for coming to Wikipedia. Some 13-year old kid might have just heard about Hirohito in class, been confused by the reference, and simply needs to know that he was the emperor of Japan during WWII. Now I personally would like him to read more and learn more, but it is not my job to write the article with that end in mind, and it's both silly and arrogant for me to think like that. Not a big deal, really, but I'm going to remove it. Un school 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove it. It simply means that leads should be well-written and interesting, so that readers might want to read more about the topic, rather than getting bored after the first sentence. That is obviously true. We do want to control our readers in that sense, yes! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the words in the text do not match the meaning you ascribe to them. Look, elsewhere in the guideline is this sentence: Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. The difference between the "make readers" version and the "consideration should be given" version is subtle—perhaps invisible to some—but I greatly prefer the latter language, and have no intention of removing it. I just don't think our guideline should include verbiage that indicates that we aim to manipulate. Un school 03:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the word "make." We want leads to be well-written, and to "make" people want to read more because their interest is piqued, rather than having leads of one sentence that don't really say anything. But that's not manipulation, except in the most banal of senses. We're not causing readers to be injected with heroin the minute they read our leads, making them read on for more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I could be reading too much into it. But if it was better worded, as it is elsewhere in the guideline, then the problem ceases to exist. I'll leave it alone, since it seems to be more important to you than it is to me, but really, it wouldn't hurt to change the wording. G'day! Un school 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Peacock terms in the lead

I've noticed that peacock terms are often found in lead sections, and the style guideline Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms discusses this with examples. Because this problem is endemic to lead sections, it would be helpful to see it mentioned here. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a brief mention of this, as long as we also recognize sometimes superlatives are not only acceptable, but desirable. I've seen some editors mistake overwhelming historical consensus for peacock terms, and I don't want to add to the confusion in the matter. For example, this sentence is taken from the lead of Abraham Lincoln: [Lincoln] successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, and even though virtually every historian on the planet agrees that the US Civil War was the country's "greatest internal crisis" (often using those three words verbatim), editors have said that this is subjective, and needs to be excised. There's a place for common sense here, as this section of WP:APT makes clear. Un school 19:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've run into the same problem several times as well. Let me try to come up with something and present it to you here for review. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolding of family name in articles about groups of living things above the species level

I am requesting comments on the interpretation of this guideline on bolding the family name in the lede of an article about a group of animals, at Talk:Elephant#Bolding of Elephantidae in lede. -- Donald Albury 09:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I'd like to do something about this sentence:

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

I understand the need for this, but it's apparently being used at FA and FAR either to remove material from the lead that's undeveloped in the text, or to insist that everything in the lead be developed. The problem with this one-size-fits-all approach is that sometimes material is good for the lead and doesn't need development, or isn't suited to it e.g. a quotation that sums the personality up in the case of a bio. I'd therefore like to add something like:

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, though sometimes material will be suitable for the lead without needing further development—for example, quotations that give an overview of the subject, or that highlight a particular aspect of it."

I'd also like to add: "Above all remember that this guideline is not a recipe or a substitute for editorial judgment."

Any objections? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, I totally agree with your assessment of the problem, and I agree with you that this needs to be reworded. But, while I have nothing better to offer right now, I'm not immediately satisfied with your proposed wording. It just seems inelegant, and hence, easily misunderstood. Anyone else feel like I do, or should we just go with SV's verbiage? Un school 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to my wording at all, Unschool; it was just a very quick suggestion. I'll take a look tomorrow and try to come up with something more articulate. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we should add "Above all remember that this guideline is not a recipe or a substitute for editorial judgment", becuase that is true of all guidelines, and I don't see that there is a particular problem here precisely for that reason. I don't agree that any changes are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but unfortunately it needs to be spelled out that guidelines aren't mandatory. I was recently told that I couldn't have in the lead of an FA that the subject, an academic, "was as close to being a feminist as a powerful man of that generation could be" (quoting another academic), unless I developed the issue of his feminism in the body of the article. LEAD was cited as the reason, and I was told that quite a few people come a cropper because of it at FAC and FAR. We do need a change if that kind of thing is happening. This page was never intended to be an algorithm. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the wording of any change, I propose (with the new part in bold):

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable published sources, though not everything mentioned in the lead must be developed in the body of the article: quotations, for example, or interesting observations about the subject may be appropriate for the lead alone, depending on editorial judgment.

I'd also like to remove the following, which is repetitive of "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic": "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's even necessary to add that text. Relevant quotations seem to me under the "use your brain" exception to all editorial guidelines, so I'd be wary of adding that bit of text. I'd actually be more inclined to remove the "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" part of the guideline, since the "teasing" text is the explanation of why it's not a good idea to drop a random fact and never mention it again. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that ... my experience with medical articles is that editors are always trying to add info to the lead which is disproportionate relative to reliable sources ... this text is important in almost every medical article I'm involved with. I don't want to delete it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the text needs to be changed (although I can be persuaded). Many guidelines and rules on wikipedia will have rare or occasional instances where it needs to be cautiously ignored or bent slightly. I think that this is one such instance, which should be resolved via common sense, concensus and good editorial judgement, see WP:COMMON. Also see this as well. WP:IGNORE--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but apparently it's not being applied with common sense, so we need to tweak it to make it sound less definitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence is sensible and should not be removed. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I do not see the "don't tease" sentence as redundant. It is possible to look at "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" and decide that a particular subtopic is worthy of only a sentence or two in the lead, which may in fact cause "teasing". (I once did this in a lead I was developing, until the "don't tease" guideline set me straight.) A. Parrot (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for adding the sentence. More importantly, I can't think of a case where something in the lead wasn't expanded more fully in the text. I'd need some examples before even considering it. Most etymological material gets expanded later in the article when I write. My biggest worry is about some form of soapboxing. Leads on big articles can be squabbled over extensively. So please maybe list some specific examples below in subsections and we can analyse them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Casliber. No specific examples have yet been given (article names, with specific text in the lead that does not summarize anything in the body). Without these examples, it's hard to see why the proposed changes are needed. Eubulides (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm one of the guilty parties here, having commented at FAC about an article that mentioned something in the lead without fleshing out the story in the article. I think the result was an improvement - I certainly learned something about naval operations in the Baltic during WWI. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the issues

Unless I am misunderstanding things, SV has brought up two different issues, although, in a strange way, they may be related. It appears to me that the first point is being lost (by SV's own mixing of the topics within the same strand). I agree with her on her first suggestion and disagree on the second.

First, she has stated that she disagrees with the current requirement within WP:LEAD that every item mentioned in the lead must be further developed later in the article.
Second, she has stated that the admonition not to "tease" the reader (with hints of what is to come) is unnecessary and should be removed from WP:LEAD.

In a way, these two policies are opposites of one another. The first might be worded, Everything in the lead must be developed into major points in the body of the article, and the second might be read, Every major point in the body must be included in the lead.

Regarding the second point, I find myself guided by the rules of good expository writing. We're not writing a mystery novel here, we're writing factual information with the intent of maximizing the help we give to our readers. If the lead of George Washington noted that he was "an important American leader", but didn't mention until the body of the article that he was the President of the US and the leader of the American military effort that gained the US's independence, that would be "teasing". That we steer away from this kind of writing is the reason why WP:LEAD recommends that notability be established as early as the first sentence, if it's possible. Consideration of our readers demands that we not force them to read the entire article just to get the gist of what the article's main ideas are. Hence, no "teasing".

Regarding her first point, I agree with SV. I have no FA experience and so am incompetent to comment on its impact there, but I know that several times I have witnessed discussions between editors disagreeing over this issue. The disputes I have come across have been of the type where some broad statement is made about the subject—sometimes even supported by a source—that is either summative of the subject or else constitutes a broad generalization, often about noteworthiness. Frankly, it just seems to me that good writing often includes making some broad swaths in the introduction. It's called "creating interest in reading the rest of the article"; it's not mandatory, but it will enhance the experience of the reader. The only downside to adopting SV's suggestion, it seems to me, is that it might be seen as an invitation to conduct OR, but the guideline can be written in such a way as to nullify that risk. Un school 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the writing I'm concerned about. Often you find a nice quote, or an interesting factoid, that's just perfect for the lead, in terms of the writing and the attempt to create a stand-alone thing that's interesting — only to have someone tell you you can't include it unless and until you develop it in the body. It's this writing-by-algorithm that I strongly disagree with, and if the guideline is being misused in that way, I'd really like to see some words added or changed to put a stop to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to solve the real problem (FAC participants insisting on mindless adherence to general advice) instead of a simple manifestation of the problem (the contents of this particular advice page). Perhaps an expansion of WP:FAC's #Supporting and Opposing section would address the issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that:

every main point of the topic should be reflected in a separate main section of the article ( a level two header), and by extension, every main section of the article should be very briefly summarized in the lead. Mentioning subsections of a major section in the lead (level three or below headers) is a decision left to common sense (even including considerations of style), but main sections are mandatory.
if things are in the lead but not the article, they can only be very specific details (teasers, I guess) which support a main topic, as reflected in a major section.
"only" above means no throwaway references to criticisms, critiques etc. which are not developed in the body text etc. Those by definition do not support; they offer a counterpoint.

...that's all Ling.Nut (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first idea is not a bad rule of thumb, but it is not always a good choice (and thus should not be turned into a rule). For example, WP:MEDMOS#Sections suggests more than a dozen major sections for disease-related articles. They may not all be sufficiently important to include in the lead, and they can't always be crammed into the same paragraph just because we simultaneously want to have at least a sentence about every level 2 topic in the lead and to restrict the lead to four paragraphs. (For that matter, some of the sections might themselves be a single sentence: The contents of an ==Epidemiology== section may be "nobody knows," dressed up to sound encyclopedic.) We need more editor judgment here, and less of a checklist approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to put this above the question to SV... the example above spells out a problem with WP:MEDMOS#Sections, rather than with my post. Sections without real content shouldn't be sections :-) On one hand I agree that guidelines shouldn't be mandatory; on the otherWP:COMMON suggests that all main section must be mentioned in the lead. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with SlimVirgin's "it needs to be spelled out that guidelines aren't mandatory", because WP:WIAFA reads as if it generally makes guidelines mandatory, with no room for WP:COMMON, and is interpreted that way - to the extent that WP:MOS minutiae dominate many FA reviews. On the other hand I share [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]'s concern that "editors are always trying to add info to the lead which is disproportionate relative to reliable sources" and Casliber's about "soapboxing" - or, to put it more bluntly, POV-pushing and WP:UNDUE. SlimVirgin, could you please provide examples of where you think it was appropriate to mention something in the lead but not cover it in the main text, so we can see whether such cases can be handled neatly but without inviting POV-pushing and WP:UNDUE. --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this off and on today - about the only thing I can come up with is an IPA pronunciation, and even then many might have more discussion in the body. I would like to see some factoids SV is thinking about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say I'm not ignoring these responses; I've just been a bit tied up elsewhere. I'll reply here soonish. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at this entire request. Is someone guilty of reading just the lead of this guideline? The "Relative emphasis" section has for some time contained exceptions to the "cover elsewhere too" rule, and has explicitly mentioned quotations as an example since SlimVirgin added them in Feb 2008. I'm most surprised at the "this guideline is not a recipe or a substitute for editorial judgment" request -- what does it say in a big box at top of the guideline? Colin°^Talk 12:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Elements in the lead: where should the protection template go?

IMO, the protection templates (Template:pp-dispute, etc.) should go at the very top, since they apply to everything beneath (including hatnotes). We'd like this determined one way or the other, so we can update AWB's top business engine accordingly. –xeno^talk 17:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we using the small icons in the upper right corner now instead of templates? Doesn't that obviate the issue? Un school 23:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not always (setting small=yes paramater, I assume you're talking about) ... –xeno^talk 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, now that you mention it, I have occasionally seen the full-sized template. But isn't this deprecated? I've changed the big templates to little icons; have I done something improper? Un school 04:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually stuff like {{pp-dispute}} is left in the embiggened form. Either way, the location still needs to be determined in the code. –xeno^talk 12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

THis question belongs at, and is treated at, WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection templates are mentioned neither at WP:ACCESS nor at WT:ACCESS and its archives. Where specifically are you referring? The original question has to do with the location vertically in the wikitext, rather than where a specific template invoked by the wikitext chooses to put its icon. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the section on the lead there indicates that it takes direction from here. So I don't understand why you think WT:ACCESS is a better venue. –xeno^talk 14:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have always placed protection templates below hatnotes, for aesthetic reasons. Compare these options. In option 1, the protection template fits in well with the cleanup template. In option 2, the hatnote is sandwiched between the protection template and the cleanup template. That leaves the hatnote sticking out to the left like a sore thumb. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone simply asked the question at WT:ACCESS? Graham87 will quickly tell you if it matters or not! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why access should make the determination. As shown by CBM this is a stylistic issue related directly to the lead that (imo) should be determined here. I'll drop a cross pointer though. –xeno^talk 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for accessibility reasons, as long as they're close to the top of the wikicode. Graham87 01:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The proposal has failed to achieve consensus. Un school 02:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Length

I propose the following:

< 15,000 characters	around 32 kilobytes	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs
500–2000 characters	1500–2500 characters	2000–3500 characters

There has been some instances in which longish articles (30-60KB readable prose) have come under scrutiny for having longish WP:LEADs. Like we have guidelines on article length, I think there should be some policy on what constitutes an acceptable length for an article's lead. No one really questions why Hillary Rodham Clinton has a long lead, but I have been asked why Tyrone Wheatley and Cato June have long leads. Personally, since their articles are lengthy, I feel it is O.K. for their leads to be so as well in order to adequately summarize the content. However, we should have a policy like a lead generally should not be much more than 3000 or 3500 characters or something that gives editors guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject has at times been confusing. Recently, Ted Kennedy has had a lot of attention paid to him and his LEAD bloated (to around 4500 characters) and then got overchopped (to under 750 characters). I believe the similar bloating happened with Michael Jackson. People don't know how long a LEAD should be and have no guideline to turn to.

The problem I see with both Tyrone Wheatley and Cato June, and in contrast to Hillary Rodham Clinton, is that the first paragraph doesn't give enough of an overview. For leads of this length, the first paragraph should give you a bite-sized overview, and the rest of the lead a longer overview. The first paragraph of a lead of this length needs to be standalone-capable. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I argue that Wheatley's is standalone capable, but that does not address the main issue of this proposal, which is to consider a new guideline. I think I have now reworked June a bit to be more clear in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wheatley's opening para doesn't mention that he went into coaching, for example. As for your proposal - well I guess it harmlessly extends the Length section in the guideline; but I don't think in characters and I'm not sure how many people do or how useful that is. Word count seems more obvious and intuitive. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It starts "Tyrone Anthony Wheatley (born January 19, 1972) is an assistant football coach". His coaching career is non-notable to date is given adequate due in the current edition of the LEAD, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's significant for the person; I would put a sentence at the end of the first para mentioning it. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if the first paragraph should stand alone, Wikipedia:Lead_section#Opening_paragraph should say so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the current guidance on lead length is fine, and we should not encourage overly long leads. I see no need for change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The policy is meant to discourage long leads like Kennedy had for a while. The current guideline does not really provide guidance in a substantive way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, current rule is fine. All cited articles are high traffic, highly watched so their leads pulse with the newsreel and then settle down, case by case. When an event like Jackson's death brings in hundreds of editors, guidelines don't work (and won't work) instantly and automatically. NVO (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest the following clarifying addition to Length section:

The lead serves as an introduction to and overview of the article; the reader should not need to read the entire article to get the key points. In general, the longer the article, the more key points there will be, and therefore the longer the lead should be - however leads should not be longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs. There is a balance between the twin pitfalls of leaving readers to find key points in a long article, and leaving readers to find key points in a long lead: for longer leads, the length of the lead itself can become a problem for the reader seeking a very rapid introduction. As a result for longer leads, it may be helpful to make the opening paragraph a bite-sized summary of the article, with the rest of the lead giving a more detailed introduction. For example, in a biography this approach would mean ensuring that the person's entire life and work is summarised in the first paragraph.

Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a valid change, but I still think something like:

The lead serves as an introduction to and overview of the article; the reader should not need to read the entire article to get the key points. In general, the longer the article, the more key points there will be, and therefore the longer the lead should be - however leads should not be longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs and should not exceed 3500 characters. There is a balance between the twin pitfalls of leaving readers to find key points in a long article, and leaving readers to find key points in a long lead: for longer leads, the length of the lead itself can become a problem for the reader seeking a very rapid introduction. As a result for longer four paragraph leads, it may be helpful to make the opening paragraph a bite-sized summary of the article, with the rest of the lead giving a more detailed introduction. For example, in a biography this approach would mean ensuring that the person's entire life and work is summarised in the first paragraph.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters? Really? It makes me think of cartoon characters... Why not a word count? Rd232 ^talk 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters, and KB are more common on WP than word count. Maybe we could get prose size to measure the lead separately and then use a KB size. However, at WP:DYK nobody seems to have trouble figuring out how many characters a passage is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When I'm reviewing GAs, I tell people to do 1-2 senteces per paragraph. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do that. Can you point me to a couple of WP:LEADs structured like that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a policy thing, or whatever. You can look at the GAs on my userpage, I guess. That's how I do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The first few articles I looked at had many more than 1-2 sentences per paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. Looking at my more recent ones, I seem to do about 2 sentences per paragraph for the small articles, and just under 1 for the larger ones. Anyways, it seems like bigger articles get bigger leads, but the leads grow slower than the articles. Maybe I just meant to do 1-2 per paragraph. Based on a spot check, how many do you do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How can you have less than one sentence per paragraph???!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters and KB may be more common, but it's not necessarily the most helpful thing for newbies. (Also I don't deal with DYK and neither do most editors.) I'm suggesting we could try and figure out a word count, and add that to the table, and leave the characters ref out of the above proposed paragraph, since it'll be right next to the table. Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Related guidelines, such as WP:SIZERULE, don't use word count anymore. I don't think we should either because that can become a stylistic restriction and does not really limit the length of a page. Some people could make 600-700 words over 5000 characters and others would be limited to less than 3000 characters due to vocabulary and stylistic tendencies. All related rules that I know about length of articles either use characters or KB. Unless you can demonstrate current guidelines that use words, I think we should stay away from word count.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Some people?" WP is a collaborative enterprise, and maybe some topics require longer words... And word count is far more common a measure outside Wikipedia... But never mind. Can we just drop the character ref in the proposed para though, it's there in the table. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

THis looks like an attempt to turn a guideline into a hard-and-fast rule via instruction creep; we do not need hard and fast character counts in a guildeline. I oppose this whole thing; it's a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I think this makes the 40th suggestion I have made that you have commented on and the 40th one you have opposed. I am beginning to think you don't like me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, what about my proposal, sans character reference? Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that there are leads with undesirable lengths, and I respect Tony's attempt to provide more guidance. Nothing he is saying is off the mark. Still, I believe that our current guideline, if combined with a good dose of insightful editing and a pinch of boldness, is enough to take care of any major problems we encounter. Let's keep it as it is, until such time as we find the problem is getting out of hand. Un school 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well since no-one seemed to object to my proposed paragraph, I've added it. (WP:BRD). Rd232 ^talk 00:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused: as I read this page, almost all input has been that no changes are warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Tony was the only one to comment explicitly on it, and that was positively. Nobody else seemed to care (comments seemed to be at Tony's suggestion), so I thought I'd stick it in per WP:BRD. PS You still haven't said what your opinion of it is! Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I commented on it, Rd. What happened, did my lack of harshness get interpreted as acquiescence? Un school 01:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well since you ask, you mentioned Tony by name, and I thought you were only addressing his change. Rd232 ^talk 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't support this addition, Rd, because people are using this guideline like a sledgehammer, so I oppose any more instruction creep. In the wrong hands, your addition would lead to arguments and revert wars over nothing, because you're basically proposing a lead within a lead, so all the fighting that currently goes on around leads would intensify around the first paragraph. If it's the inverted pyramid you're suggesting, I largely agree, but I also want editors to be allowed some editorial freedom. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's a guideline. All of these proposed changes, word and character counts, etc. are just opening it up to wikilawyering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a "rule of 15": The lead should be approximately 1/15th the size of the entire article. For the boundaries, we could maybe say, no less than 300 or more than 4000 characters. It could be noted that this is just a rule of thumb and is flexible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is that the current policy advocates a three to four paragraph lead for any article greater than 30,000 characters (30 KB, I believe). I think our upward bound on characters, be it 3500 or 4000, should thus be reached at 30,000 characters or 30 KB, as it were. I have not seen a lead longer than 3500 characters that I do not think is too long so I don't know why we would advocate a policy over 3500. I have seen plenty between 3000 and 3500 that seem reasonable. If you can point me to WP:LEADs over 3500 that you consider acceptable, I would consider advocating 4000, but I think I am inclined to support with 3500.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

King, that's a thoughtful compromise, but I'm not able to support it. I think it could easily lead to two problems.

Lede police who will trim valuable info from a lead because it nominally exceeds the recommended length, and the opposite,
Editors who will add fluff to ledes to get them "up to recommended levels", without it necessarily being good writing.

I really think our current guideline is enough for good editors to handle the problem insofar as it currently exists. Sure, there will be some disagreements on occasion, but I would prefer having those settled by intelligent discussion than by some pre-determined semi-arbitrary limits that may or may not be in the best interests of any particular article in the future. Un school 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Length, arbitrary break

Does anyone know of any leads longer than 3500 characters that are not considered too long?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not. In fact, I've never counted the characters in a lede. If there are some that are too long that need to be trimmed down, I would be open to creating a list (is there a category for this already?) and I would rather enjoy participating in trimming them down, or not, on a case-by-case basis. Un school 01:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you have never counted the characters is kind of the point. When the 4500+ character Ted Kennedy Lead was four paragraphs it was still too long. What I am saying is not everyone is an experienced editor who knows how long a lead should be and not all articles with leads that are too long are highly trafficked. The point is to help give some guidance. If no one has ever seen a lead over 3500 characters that is not too long and many have seen acceptable 3000 character leads, it would be instructive to many who do not know what to do and who are relying on policy. Not all editors who read WP:LEAD would even know that a 4500 character lead is too long.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Kennedy example you gave is too long, but I'd still prefer to leave it to editorial judgment. We're reaching the point with our policies and guidelines where it's as though we expect editors to act like bots. We need to lead some room for people to decide what's best in context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You mention editorial judgement. I will ask again has there ever been a 3500+character lead that was not too long? It is not like I am restricting editors. In this case it would help concerned editors trim articles. For example, suppose at a GA sweeps review a single reviewer is debating with a cooridnated group of editors regarding a four-paragraph 4000-character LEAD that they don't want to trim. This would help him say. Just cut it.

Yes, that Kennedy lead is too long. But note that his article has had over 500 edits since his death. Look at how the lead looked 1000 edits ago. It clearly has problems (including major vandalism), but length is not one of them. I think we should expect this sort of thing when someone or something is in the news. Another issue, since this article has been edited so extensively since his death, is would such a guideline actually help in this circumstance? This is the sort of event that brings out newbie editors. They will not know the guideline, and rigid enforcement in the wake of their attempts to get involved will push WP:BITE to the limit, methinks.

My thinking is closer to SV and SG here. I think that this is the sort of stuff that actually justifies calling us "editors". Additionally, I still have the concerns I noted above.

I just can not think of a case where a 3500 character lead rule adds unnecessary rigidity and until someone can point out a 3500+ character lead that should not be trimmed, I think efforts to avoid such a clarification would impair sane editorial efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be a good idea, but I've never been told a lead was too long myself. That doesn't mean it isn't a common problem, I just haven't run into it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since as a reader, I often only read the LEAD and the infoboxes, when possible I try to make my leads comprehensive and they have been at issue several times at Tyrone Wheatley, Cato June, Jack Kemp, Jesse Jackson, Jr., too name a few. I have also seen long LEADs and said to myself, I don't want to deal with chopping this down without intimacy with the subject. Your leads are not problematic. I usually find article's with underdeveloped leads because as people expand articles, they often fail to expand the lead accordingly. However, there is no general consensus on what is too long and with all the responses I have gotten on this page no one has identified a LEAD longer the 3500 characters that is too long, yet I could in an hour find five articles with stable LEADs between 3000 and 3500 characters. I think many important people with 2000-2500ish character four-paragraph leads could use expansion. Lead length is an issue quite often.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I think I'm sensing frustration on your part, and I think it's because we are failing to make our point clear. In a wikiworld where all editors operated, not only with complete good faith, but with the willingness to reason and discuss issues, the 3500 character guideline would be very helpful. Yes, you're right, I had no idea what a reasonable length looks like. But such a "rule" would open the door to editing by fiat. I have no problem imagining an editor cutting out a critical sentence because the lede contained 3571 characters. That's the rule, they could say, and the article might actually be worse off. I can also see someone adding material clearly not suited for the lede because "the lede was too short". I don't want to get into these arguments, but they will happen. Think about WP:3RR. The spirit of the rule is one thing, but editors routinely enter into edit wars playing that number to the hilt.

Tony, here's my point. I just can not think of a case where a lead cannot be trimmed by competent editors to an acceptable length. I'd rather have a category of excessively long leads and go trim them down (once it had been ascertained that said ledes were, in fact, too long). Un school 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what you are sensing is your own frustration. I don't know what editing by fiat means and how it applies, but it sounds frustrating. WP is has no hard and fast rules and there are always exceptions. Even a general 3500 character rule would have exceptions I am sure. Hillary Rodham Clinton was determined at WP:GAR not to be too long although over 60KB when I reviewed it for GA sweeps. The category approach you are talking about I believe relies on the template tags for long leads on the top of the page that I find unattractive (and maybe frustrating:). 3500 might not be a limit on editing. Take Franklin D. Roosevelt who has a 3333 character five-paragraph WP:LEAD and 62 KB article. I think his lead could use a 5-10% trim, but I would be pretty satisfied if it were just reorganized to be four paragraphs. I think Theodore Roosevelt's 3640-character five-paragraph LEAD is TOO LONG. I am of the opinion that somewhere between these two lengths is where the reader is given more than a quick scan. However, it is not inconceivable to me that an argument could be made that there is no way to reduce his LEAD from 3640 to 3500 characters. Nonetheless a 3500 character rule would encourage refinement of such a long lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tony, if there's one thing we agree on, its about the tags at the top of articles. I positively loathe them, and would probably shoot my wiki-self if anything I ever proposed ended up leading to more of that litter on the top of ledes. Actually, I'm not sure we can even agree on that, because I think it's a metaphysical impossibility for you to dislike tags as much as I do . . . :-)

When I say, "editing by fiat", I was intentionally invoking hyperbole, but what I mean by that is making editorial decisions not by the usual process of discussion, but by simply pronouncing that an edit is necessary to stay in line with the rules. As I type these words, I admit that it sounds a bit silly . . . it is hard to envision a group of wikilawyers getting their way on the length of a lead just for its own sake. But I just don't want to have to deal with people whose mindsets are so molded by numerical measures that they are incapable of engaging in discussion.

And I actually do think that some type of categorization would be helpful. And I don't see why it would have to require a hideous tag—there are plenty of categories that do not have tag tie-ins. Most of them, in fact. If there was a page I could go to with overly long leads, I would work on those regularly. The lead is my favorite part of almost every article. I think it's the most important part, given that probably 3/4 of our readership never gets past it.

I guess what it comes down to is that I trust our editors to do the right thing in this matter, if they are only made aware of it. And I guess, by adding this to a guideline, that that's what you want to do. But I want it on a case by case basis, not as a general rule. Un school 05:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Trump card? Tony, if we implement your guideline, won't we still have to identify problem articles? Won't that mean some kind of listing? Isn't that what I've been suggesting? If the means exists to identify problem leads, it doesn't matter if the identification is because of a character count or a wise-editor's eyeballing the page, it just gets identified, and placed on a list. (And then, hopefully, fixed.) Un school 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take Theodore Roosevelt's 3640-character five-paragraph LEAD as an example. It is five paragraphs and in violation of the policy as it is. Would merging two paragraphs solve the problem. It would not really make the LEAD shorter, but it would cause it to be consistent with policy. At one point there was a Lead is too long tag on Ted Kennedy's article. I would like to see one on Roosevelt's article. Such a tag would put it in a category I imagine where you could go find it. What other type of listing do you propose. Once it is listed what do you want a paragraph merger to bring it in line with policy. Suppose we had a 3500 character guideline. Editors would say to themselves that one of the first things we need to do is dissect about 150 characters out of the LEAD. That would be good. O.K. let's look at FDR. If we had a 3500 character rule, it would not stop people from rfining the WP LEAD. It would not even stop them from putting a tag on the article. It would just be there saying you better think hard about adding another two sentences to this article. I can not stand arguments that say if we create X guideline then nobody would be able to think cogently about the issue when X does not apply. Hillary was vociferously defended at a length longer than policy dictates. Having a policy would not cause all WPian's brains to shut down any more than having an overall length rule does. As I understand your fiat argument you are saying that the moment 3500 were to go up people would run around chopping perfectly fine cherry trees out of articles or something. I could not conceive of the LEAD of an article like Teddy Roosevelt being willy nilly mauled or something. I imagine if it were shrunk, it would be done for editorial propriety rather than any particular rule.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see people argue, "This lead is too long because it contains this, and this, and this, and these are not key issues. I don't want to see anyone argue, "This lead is too long because it's 1,000 characters over the guideline limit." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that is the way all editing is suppose to work. In fact, there is really no need for guidelines except when you are in a heated debate and someone says, "Can you please cite some policy." I have always said there are cases where rules can be broken. When I last argued about Hillary exceeding 60 KB at GAR it was 62KB. It is now 64 KB. It is going the wrong way with respect to WP:SIZE 60 KB splitting guidance. However, people are sensible enough to say well she has prisoners to set free and places to go that are important to write about. Maybe the next time I check Teddy someone will have added 100 characters of good content to his LEAD. The policy is always a guideline and I think it is always better to have a policy. I can not see an article with concerned editors that would let an article have necessary content excised because of a rule. They would always take the time to explain why a specific case is an exception. I think in general you will find that few articles in excess of 3500 characters could not use some pruning however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you're beginning to make a little bit of sense to me. On the other hand, I am also nodding off and hitting my head on the monitor. In the morning I'm sure I'll disagree with you as much as I did two hours ago. :-) I'm taking a break and look forward to others' comments. G'night. Un school 06:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I will be trying to fall asleep in about a half hour myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly having a 3500 rule would not mean the the 3338 character Avicenna is a model of perfection. It is one of the worst leads I have ever seen. There is no fiat relevant. It needs work. Sensible editorial evaluation is the guiding rule at all times. Among 3000+ LEADs, The Beatles (3 paragraphs and 3256 characters), Immanuel Kant (5 paragraphs and 3187 chars), Muhammad (4 para, 3027 char), Elizabeth I of England (4 para, 3296) seem to be fine, but each should be 4 paragrapsh. Karl Marx at 3625 could use some restructuring, IMO. The only serious exceptions to 3500 that I know of are Augustus at 3934 characters and Alexander the Great at 3714 characters. If I spent some time with these two articles I am not convinced I could not bring them closer to 3500 characters. If not, however, they would be rare exceptions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disappointed that my paragraph was removed, apparently on the grounds that it'll lead to more argument if it encourages people to use an inverted pyramid in long leads. But it only gave general, hedged guidance - nothing like the hard character limits being discussed here. Sure it could have been improved, no doubt, but I'm disappointed that in the context of this discussion about not wanting to straitjacket editors, some general guidance is rejected. Rd232 ^talk 11:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why it was removed. I think it was sound guidance and guidance I have been given at FAC. I did not look at the long leads I have presented above to see if it is the prevailing sentiment in some of the most important articles on wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, of the long leads above Theodore Roosevelt kind of uses it. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Muhammad and Elizabeth I of England do. Avicenna, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Augustus, The Beatles and Alexander the Great are articles that are either just plain bad, longer than 3500 or not 4 paragraphs and do not. Franklin D. Roosevelt does not. Most of the LEADs that I think are conforming do and most that need to consider reworking do not. Thus, I think it is a good rule based on prevailing practice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the value of a numerical yardstick, because "too long" and "too short" are uselessly vague. However such guidelines need to be qualified, e.g. "The lead should not exceed 3500 characters, unless reducing the length makes the lead less intelligible or a less accurate summary of the main text."

Likewise the "maximum of 4 paras" rule should be qualified, e.g. "unless combining different aspects in the same paragraph makes the lead harder to understand, or creates an incorrect impression that two aspects have a particularly strong connection..". --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Instruction creep and contrary to the way a guideline should work. Further, if such wording is added, LEAD disputes will spill over into content review processes. Hard limits and counting of characters are contrary to the notion of a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, since you vehemently oppose any policy suggestion I have ever made on WP, may I ask how you feel about the character count rule that has crept into WP:TFAR or the ones that has prevailed at WP:DYK. Why are character count rules not proposed by me different.

Character counts have not "crept in" to those areas: they have always been there because of hard, physical space constraints on the main page. Please try not to personalize discussions; stay on topic here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not always.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, always. I can't decipher what you're trying to show with that link, but Raul has always dealt with the space limitations on the main page. At any rate, can we stay focused on this discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What it shows is that there wasn't always an explicit 1200 guideline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. What it also shows is a time before I suggested adding points for 25 year anniversary, then you opposed and then was adopted when someone else suggested it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I like Philcha's comments above--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are pretty obviously totally different, designed for the requirements of different main page features. Neither says anything at all about any length of an element in the permanent mainspace article. 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

With Philcha's suggestion we would have (bold addition seems most agreed upon, italicized is still contentious):

I don't know who wrote these last two unsigned comments, but I continue to disagree that anything here is "most agreed upon", and repeat that most comments on the page indicate no changes are warranted. Please use four tildes ( ~~~~ ) to sign your entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have signed mine with the missing tilde - I think the other is you splitting up Tony's comments. Incidentally the 1500 char article-length requirement on DYK is nothing to do with main page space, as you imply above, but merely to keep very short stubs out. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead serves as an introduction to and overview of the article; the reader should not need to read the entire article to get the key points. In general, the longer the article, the more key points there will be, and therefore the longer the lead should be - however leads should not be longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs unless combining different aspects in the same paragraph makes the lead harder to understand, or creates an incorrect impression that two aspects have a particularly strong connection. The lead should not exceed 3500 characters, unless reducing the length makes the lead less intelligible or a less accurate summary of the main text. There is a balance between the twin pitfalls of leaving readers to find key points in a long article, and leaving readers to find key points in a long lead: for longer leads, the length of the lead itself can become a problem for the reader seeking a very rapid introduction. As a result for longer (4 paragraph) leads, it may be helpful to make the opening paragraph a bite-sized summary of the article, with the rest of the lead giving a more detailed introduction. For example, in a biography this approach would mean ensuring that the person's entire life and work is summarised in the first paragraph.

Length, arbitrary break 2

This discussion is rapidly spiraling into TL;DR territory, but I'm just going to oppose all the above from what I've seen and read. I haven't seen any indications that we suffer a crisis from not having a set of arbitrary bright line "recommendations". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs, even though I don't know where TL;DR territory is. My guess is that lead length is a problem with only a tiny fraction of articles. I do hundreds of reviews at PR and at FAC, and I am hard put to remember when this was last an issue. Looking for a solution to which there is no problem is like seeking a cure for which there is no disease. The present guidelines are adequate and sensible. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead length, like article length, is a problem in only a select few articles. It still does not mean an ounce of prevention would not be helpful. I am not quite sure no disease is the truth. With a few minutes research I found Karl Marx, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Augustus and Alexander the Great, which are all over 3500. I think half of these LEADs could be shrunk beneficially to the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm about thunk out here. Here's my final comments, barring the Second Coming:

Tony's instincts about lead lengths are pretty sound, and his intent—expressing the recognition of occasional exceptions—is also reasonable.
However, evidence that this problem of excessive leads is rife, let alone a ~~crisis~~ situation that needs addressing, has not been forthcoming, as David Fuch indicates above.
Additionally, I am personally unconvinced that inclusion of this restriction will, in fact, actually reduce the problem insofar as it actually exists.

So I guess I remain where I was, respectfully opposed to the addition of this to the guideline.

However, to the extent that the problem exists, I would genuinely love to be part of the solution. The problem I'm seeing is, how do we recognize which articles need to be addressed? I went looking for the tag Tony mentioned, and while I found it, it did not easily lead me to a category page where all the tagged article were listed, and in fact, I believe no such page exists, though I was able to use the "What links here" on the template to create this, which I will work from.

Tony, I will also undertake to work on the ledes of Marx, FDR, Augustus, and Alexander, because it's a great task. It's good editing work, and I think we can tackle it without the guideline you seek. I hope to add them to my cleaned-up list by the end of September. I've already trimmed/rewritten the lead of Demographics of Estonia today, as a result of the attention you've drawn to this issue. And I believe that an editor as prolific as you could get more good done on this topic with serious editing than you will ever get done with your proposed guideline.

{{Intro-toolong}} should be amended to put articles in a cleanup category.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate that. Anyone know how and willing to do it? Un school 19:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unschool, by way of history, such efforts (including tagging) have yielded nothing even with ultra-long articles, so they are unlikely to make much difference with leads. I could dig up all the old history on long articles, but it would take me a lot of time, so I hope you'll trust me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm acquainted with the futility of tagging to correct problems, and I don't want to start something new along those lines. (I postively destest tags at the top of articles.) But if they're already there, I'd just like to be able to find them and work on them. I enjoy cleaning up and I enjoy working on lead sections. But I have no delusions that this step is a "solution".

The question is, do we recognize that at least some articles have overly long leads? To declare that there are no extant leads in need of serious trimming would be disingenuous. To state that there are some leads too long, but that nothing can be done about it is just unhelpful. And to say that having one editor devote a portion of his time to working on the matter is not worth his time, well, that's just a bit cynical. Sandy, you are one of the leading voices in Wikipedia, so I don't believe you're saying any of these things. But what are you saying? What should be done? Are there no articles that need this work? I'm open to any advice you have to offer, but I'm not inclined to believe an issue should be ignored just because we don't recognize how to handle it. Un school 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm only saying to be prepared to be frustrated :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Fortunately, this is an all-volunteer project, and if you go AWOL, only OlEnglish is likely to notice. :-) Un school 19:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unschool, that was Teddy and not FDR that was too long. I forgot which one it was for a second.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ARRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! Un school 00:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC) :-)

Great work tightening up FDR though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! But you did a great job, regardless. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

:-) The following comments are respectfully segregated for the sake of continuity in the discussion into which they were unfortunately interjected. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made here the location of the original discussion. No further edits should be made in this box.

*Erm... Sorry to be off-topic, but could we get some people to weigh in above at #Elements in the lead: where should the protection template go? while they are here. AWB devs are waiting on a determination one way or the other to fix something or leave it as it is. Thanks, and I now return you to your regularly scheduled 2nd arbitrary break. –xeno^talk 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I already did ... the question should be asked at WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved for no discernable reason. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made here the location of the original discussion. No further edits should be made in this box.

Ignoring a lot of the above, simply because there is too much - common grammar school education (at least, when there was such a thing) use to say that a paragraph was 5 to 10 sentences. As such, no article should really have over 40 sentences in their lead. That is still a long lead, but it would cut down on some of the unbearably long leads. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad to see you feel that there should be a limit, but what kind of guidance is 40 sentences. Two simple sentences can be conjoined to make one compound sentence without shortening the length.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  - If someone is honestly ridiculous enough to have outrageously long sentences, then chances are their article would not pass FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand the basis of measurement. Can you confirm that in the second sentence below, I have shortened it to one sentence:

two-sentence statement: Dick likes Jane. Jane dislikes Dick.

one-sentence statement: Dick likes Jane, although Jane dislikes Dick.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be little reason to change the guideline. Tony (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- My primary point is that I do not know how long 4 paragraphs is and doubt even a copyediting genius like you could tell me. Thus, since all over WP they use character counts and KB counts as guides, I thought it might be helpful here as a guideline (not a hard and fast rule). However, if anyone can tell me how long four paragraphs is I will be edified to the point of elation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Half as long as eight? Probably not considering Catholic Church has a seven paragraph lead, which is not that much longer than the four paragraphs of Alexander the Great. Guest9999 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... A paragraph is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea. That is a more heavyweight, more meaningful measurement than a byte count. Perhaps this implies something which should be developed in the project page. A guideline of no more than N paragraphs in the lead says that this summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article should only mention N particular points or ideas, implying that a single article should contain no more than N particular points or ideas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if you keep hammering away, I will eventually understand how long a paragraph is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I know the editor of a magazine who, when his writers ask for an approximate length for a piece he's requested, tells them, "it should be as long as it needs to be." It's a good rule for sentences, paragraphs, and leads too. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Same for articles I guess, but we still have guidelines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wtmitchell's post "A paragraph is a self-contained unit of a discourse..." (01:58, 2 September 2009) is very similar to the "one paragraph = 1 idea" recommended by many guides to writing for the web. For some wide-ranging subjects, article leads need to summarise more than 4 discrete ideas / aspects, and leads exceeding 4 paragraphs should be allowed for such subjects - see my earlier post (14:21, 30 August 2009). --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never encountered this as a problem, but as stated above, I don't see why an ounce of prevention would be bad. I would support this measure as long as isn't stated as a strict bright line and a paragraph-based reference point were also used. Something like "leads of this size should be around X characters (or about Y paragraphs)". — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is what we already have, at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Length. Adding any more will lead to problems-- as you note, there are currently none, and this proposal is looking to cause a problem that doesn't currently exist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  - Not exactly. She is suggesting a change to something like what was proposed, which is different from what exists. Adding more will lead to more guidance, which I don't really see to be a problem since it is only guidance. You surely misunderstand the proposal if you think it is looking to cause problems. It is looking to give guidance (as guidelines are suppose to do). More specifically, it is looking to explain how long X number of paragraphs is expected to be, which if you look long and hard at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Length, you will see that no such guidance exists. Take another look at the section you are pointing us to and see if you can tell how long X number of resonable paragraphs is expected to be. Of course, if you think it is causing problems trying to give such guidance when numerous leads (even of important articles) are way too long, then don't. I could find dozens of important articles that are way too long if you want to discuss why the problem exists. You could also ignore the fact that many leads are too long and say there is no problem, which is what you insist on doing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    - I don't think we're dealing with "a problem that doesn't currently exist". I've improved some complex scientific articles to GA, the lead of the length was raised in most cases, and in each of these cases the reviewers accepted my reasons for the length and/or number of paras. One reviewer said, "I read the lead section several times, and cannot determine any way to reduce the size without taking away from the content." Since some editors have a "don't me think" attitude to guidelines, I suggest WP:LEAD needs to be explicit about flexibility and situations where flexibility may be needed. hence the proposal I presented in an earlier sub-section (14:21, 30 August 2009). --Philcha (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Length, arbitrary break 3

WP:LEAD length is a problem that exists. Numerous articles have LEADs that are too long and guidance is necessary. Even many of the most important and highly trafficked articles on wikipedia are susceptible to this problem. Since this issue has been brought to light I have been able to encourage Unschool (talk · contribs) harness her energy to refine some of wikipedia's most important articles in this regards. She has trimmed Franklin Roosevelt from this to this (3333 characters, 505 words and 5 paragraphs to 2501 characters, 397 words and 4 paragraphs), Alexander the Great from this to this (3720 characters, 580 words and 4 paragraphs to 2939 characters, 469 words and 4 paragraphs) and Eiffel Tower from this to this (3692 characters, 660 words and 6 paragraphs to 1797 characters, 321 words and 4 paragraphs). My original proposal above was that 3500 is too long. Having watched her contribute her time to these articles I have revised my opinion to a guideline that articles need not exceed 3000-3200 characters in general.

More importantly look at Alexander the Great. Her efforts have led to three separate discussions on the talk page beginning with Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Lead and the article has ballooned back to 3714 characters, 580 words and 4 paragraphs. This is a classic case where one diligent editor left without the ammunition of a guideline is helpless in his/her effort to improve the project. I have no doubt that this lead could be trimmed to less than 3200 words to the agreement of neutral parties. However, a guideline is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the objectives of your quest for ever-shorter leads? --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment for Tony, but my proposed paragraph of guidance seems relevant, on the tension between leads being too short and too long. See one version of it just above "Length, arbitrary break 2" in this section. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever-shorter seems to be an odd and misleading choice of words. Could you clarify your question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If I a interpreting your question you are asking why my initial statement that lead generally should not be much more than 3000 or 3500 characters has become not exceed 3000-3200 characters in general. If I am interpreting your question it is a bit misguided. My point is that the current guideline offers no guidance on what the meaning of X paragraphs is. The fact that I am not sure whether the guideline should point to a 3000-3500 character cap or a 3000-3200 character cap is not really the issue. The issue is whether we should have a policy that helps resolve overly long lead problems that abound on wikipedia. I have demonstrated above just looking at the biography portion of the Wikipedia:Vital articles that even 5% of our most important articles suffer from long leads. What more needs to be said? There is no policy to rectify this problem and everyone is covering their eyes about whethter there are in fact articles with leads that are too long. We have a problem and I am seeking a solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What, in your view, are the objectives of a lead? What are your criteria for the length of a lead? --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:LEAD The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies..

IMO some consequences of the current statement of objectives for a lead:

"summary of the important aspects of the subject" may imply more than 4 paras, if there are more than 4 important aspects - a couple of sub-sections back I suggested that it could be confusing to readers if the lead shoehorned into 1 para 2 aspects that are not particularly closely connected.
"should be able to stand alone" implies that the lead should be easily understood by the target audience. Except for some mathematical and possibly physics topics, I suggest the target audience is a teenager with average education and intellect. Hence the lead may often have to use circumlocutions rather than technical jargon. In general I suggest clarity takes priority over conciseness. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am inferring that you are against both a number of paragraphs and number of characters guideline. What are your thoughts on the current debate on the Alexander the Great article. Do you not feel there is a problem with its length. It seems to me that the sub 3000 character version was sufficient. I do not see the need for over 3700 characters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already suggested leads should aim to be not more than 3500 chars and 4 paras, provided these restrictions do not reduce the lead's coverage, accuracy and clarity.

I'm won't boldly go into Alexander the Great. The hardest part is how far one can summarise his military career, and possibly his death. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to say, first of all, that I do not believe in trimming down leads for the sake of simply making them shorter. Tony and I have disagreed on the need for a numerical limit for this very reason: I believe that quality articles are a function of good writing, not quantifiable limits. It was for that reason that I began this week to improve leads that Tony had identified as too long. And I do believe that I improved them, sometimes dramatically so, but not because I made them shorter but because I wrote them better. And Tony understands that. Where we disagree is that I think he believes that having this ceiling (be it soft or hard) on lead length makes it easier to write a better lead or perhaps makes it harder to write a poor lead. But the lead on Eiffel Tower was simply crap, with two sentences devoted to the number of stairs between different levels and a whole paragraph devoted to the painting scheme of the tower. I didn't need a numerical guideline to tell me what to do.

And while I have great respect for Tony and his work, I draw different conclusions from my experiences this past week than he does. Tony mentioned that I made another bold change to Alexander the Great's lead. But I wouldn't charachterize it as having "ballooned back"; that implies to me that other editors added more and more stuff that made it get huge again. But actually what happened is that it was quickly reverted by an editor who has invested months on that lead. Yes, he had an emotional response to seeing his work largely obliterated. Who amongst us would not have been upset? Yet he and I and others have begun a discussion—a calm, reasoned discussion—and he has acknowledged some of my points and has convinced me that one of the paragraphs in my lead is simply not appropriate for this article. As soon as I read it, I knew he was right, and he appears to have had a similar, if belated, reaction to my suggestions. I am now very optimistic that we are going to have things worked out, and the lead will be better than ever. This is how I think we should improve our leads, by engaging in discussion.

I'm glad Tony brought this up to this page, but I am now more convinced than ever that numerical guidelines are not necessary. I intend to continue my work* on improving—which will sometimes shorten—leads, and if someday I change my mind and decide that Tony's way is the right way, I'll do my mea culpa right on this page.Un school 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC) ^{*My ISP has messed up my service, and I have not had access for a couple of days—using a computer away from home right now. Hope to have it back in 24 hours or less, but no more lead overhauls until then.Unschool}

I have never said that I believe the quality of an article is in any way related to how concise it is. I argue that in most cases, the quality of longer leads would be improved by distilling them down to essential encyclopedic summary of content. I, however, as someone who often contests content removal by demanding a relevant policy on the issue, feel that your efforts to crystallize the content into its most pure summary would be aided if you could convince people to let you remove content for policy reasons as well as pure editorial reasons. Maybe you will be able to get the editors at Alexander the Great to allow you to pare down the WP:LEAD based on your editorial arguments. However, maybe you won't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of why you believe you are shortening the leads there is a real problem that overly-long leads abound and people are resistant to shortening them. That is what is at issue in this debate. Why you or I believe you are shortening the articles is a mere distraction. Everyone has come by this discussion and acted as if they have never heard of an overly long lead or resistance to shortening one. We now have evidence that it is a problem. It is possible that this is the very first time in the history of wikipedia that this has ever happened and that it will be the last, but I wouldn't bet two cents on either of those possibilities. I think we all know that this has happened several times before and will happen several more times. We should have a policy to guide us in these situations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony. Writing a concise lead is much harder than writing a long lead but writing a long lead is usually a step on the road to the perfect version. I firmly believe very few articles need a lead longer than 2500 words however I also believe that editing a longer lead down to the right length is dificult and will take as long as it takes. Having a strict character count will, in my opinion, distract editors from this task make this process more dificult. Please don't change the current guidelines.filceolaire (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You almost make it sound as if I am going to delete the article if they don't try to improve it toward a more concise form. If you agree that LEADs should be concise, then editors should be told that we prefer concise leads in some way. Having a guideline saying concise leads are preferred does not impose a deadline to rush editors into action.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about your response a bit more. I am going to assume that you agree that (i) if five or ten percent of our most important articles have overly-long leads that is a problem and that (ii) if the editors are resistant to making these leads more concise that is a problem. If neither of these things is a problem then this discussion is moot. Given that we have a problem, as I understand your response, you are saying yes we have a problem and yes we know we would like the leads to be more concise, but if we tell the editors what we would prefer by making the guideline clear, it might confuse them. Thus, instead of telling people what would be the preferred solution to the problem don't tell them anything that would clarify what would be preferred. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Remark: I think the point that Too Long leads are often a necessary step on the road to Right Length leads is true. Also I think more leads of long articles are too short than too long. Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely true. However, when there is a long lead, I see no harm in providing guidance on what is preferred.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Length, arbitrary break 4

This topic (Length) with all of its arbitrarily broken subsections is now approaching 60,000 characters—not quite as long as Abraham Lincoln, but getting close. Would somebody care to provide a lead section for the benefit of those who just want a summary of this discussion? And how long should we make this lead section? Un school 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the proposed change, and there's not likely to be; I suggest no longer feeding the thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.